What are the consequences of combining nuclear and mitochondrial data for phylogenetic analysis? Lessons from Plethodonsalamanders and 13 other vertebrate clades

M Caitlin Fisher-Reid,John J Wiens

doi:10.1186/1471-2148-11-300

Abstract

BackgroundThe use of mitochondrial DNA data in phylogenetics is controversial, yet studies that combine mitochondrial and nuclear DNA data (mtDNA and nucDNA) to estimate phylogeny are common, especially in vertebrates. Surprisingly, the consequences of combining these data types are largely unexplored, and many fundamental questions remain unaddressed in the literature. For example, how much do trees from mtDNA and nucDNA differ? How are topological conflicts between these data types typically resolved in the combined-data tree? What determines whether a node will be resolved in favor of mtDNA or nucDNA, and are there any generalities that can be made regarding resolution of mtDNA-nucDNA conflicts in combined-data trees? Here, we address these and related questions using new and published nucDNA and mtDNA data for Plethodon salamanders and published data from 13 other vertebrate clades (including fish, frogs, lizards, birds, turtles, and mammals).ResultsWe find widespread discordance between trees from mtDNA and nucDNA (30-70% of nodes disagree per clade), but this discordance is typically not strongly supported. Despite often having larger numbers of variable characters, mtDNA data do not typically dominate combined-data analyses, and combined-data trees often share more nodes with trees from nucDNA alone. There is no relationship between the proportion of nodes shared between combined-data and mtDNA trees and relative numbers of variable characters or levels of homoplasy in the mtDNA and nucDNA data sets. Congruence between trees from mtDNA and nucDNA is higher on branches that are longer and deeper in the combined-data tree, but whether a conflicting node will be resolved in favor mtDNA or nucDNA is unrelated to branch length. Conflicts that are resolved in favor of nucDNA tend to occur at deeper nodes in the combined-data tree. In contrast to these overall trends, we find that Plethodon have an unusually large number of strongly supported conflicts between data types, which are generally resolved in favor of mtDNA in the combined-data tree (despite the large number of nuclear loci sampled).ConclusionsOverall, our results from 14 vertebrate clades show that combined-data analyses are not necessarily dominated by the more variable mtDNA data sets. However, given cases like Plethodon, there is also the need for routine checking of incongruence between mtDNA and nucDNA data and its impacts on combined-data analyses.

Highlights

The use of mitochondrial DNA data in phylogenetics is controversial, yet studies that combine mitochondrial and nuclear DNA data to estimate phylogeny are common, especially in vertebrates
The mtDNA and nucDNA conflict with each other at 34 of 51 nodes, and conflicts at 19 of the 34 discordant nodes are strongly supported by both data types (Table 1)
In 15 of these 19 cases, these strongly supported conflicts are resolved in favor of the mtDNA in the combineddata tree

Summary

Introduction

The use of mitochondrial DNA data in phylogenetics is controversial, yet studies that combine mitochondrial and nuclear DNA data (mtDNA and nucDNA) to estimate phylogeny are common, especially in vertebrates. How are topological conflicts between these data types typically resolved in the combined-data tree? The field of molecular phylogenetics is heading towards an exciting future. In this future, genomics will allow for the use of dozens of unlinked nuclear loci to estimate phylogenies [e.g. Genomics will allow for the use of dozens of unlinked nuclear loci to estimate phylogenies [e.g. Most reviews have focused on the use of mtDNA in phylogeographic studies [e.g. [23,24,28]] and on the question of whether mtDNA should be used in phylogenetics at all [e.g. [22]]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion